Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexed up
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. The crux of the AfD nomination was the lack of sourcing. Thanks to Mr. Norton's efforts, the article meets WP:RS standards and does not run afoul of WP:NEO standards. At this point, the original call for deletion is out of date. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sexed up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced, little more than a dictionary definition. Fails WP:NEO at present for not having reliable sourcing about the term in and of itself. Note there was a VFD in 2004 see Talk:Sexed up#From VFD. –xenotalk 17:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: WP:NEO,WP:NOTDIC. See wikt:sex up. — Rankiri (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and supplement. It is definite not a dic definition, it has the context and usage, like an encyclopedic entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- The article is pretty much unreferenced: the only listed "reference" uses the term incidentally, doesn't offer any coverage of it and even puts it in quotes. As for the context, do you really find the fact that there are songs titled "I Wanna Sex You Up" and "Sexed Up" contextually relevant and pertaining to an encyclopedia? From WP:NEO: A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing. From WP:NOTDIC: Wikipedia articles are not dictionary articles, are not whole dictionaries, and are not slang and usage guides. — Rankiri (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment, its based on the term, not on the current condition of the article. See here , its a term used since 1990 according to Google News archive. Adding a "ref" tag is a good move, an AFD is not called for. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Again, from WP:NEO (should I really quote it all?): Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case. Some of the reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate are:
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.
- Articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. — Rankiri (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment, its based on the term, not on the current condition of the article. See here , its a term used since 1990 according to Google News archive. Adding a "ref" tag is a good move, an AFD is not called for. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate your efforts to bring this article in line with our inclusion standards and may even vote "keep" if this is done prior to the end of this AFD. Try here. It seems to talk about the term itself. –xenotalk 20:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I'm just not seeing any indication this term is sufficiently Notable to warrant having its own article. It belongs in a List somewhere. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Given that the deletion argument is based on the claim that this article is "Unsourced, little more than a dictionary definition. Fails WP:NEO at present for not having reliable sourcing about the term in and of itself", an extensive quote in The Guardian in which Lord Hutton describes the term and provides specific examples about its use would rebut the argument in its entirety. The reliable and verifiable sources provided for the term and its usage establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but you're misrepresenting the facts. Hutton's description doesn't discuss the term in significant detail as it only describes it in the context of one particular, atypical use. Here's the relevant part of the quote and please note the original use of quotation marks:
- The term "sexed-up" is a slang expression, the meaning of which lacks clarity in the context of the discussion of the dossier. It is capable of two different meanings. It could mean that the dossier was embellished with items of intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable . . . or it could mean that whilst the intelligence contained in the dossier was believed to be reliable, the dossier was drafted in such a way as to make the case against Saddam Hussein as strong as the intelligence contained in it permitted. — Rankiri (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.